We should not try to ban flag burning.
We should not try to ban flag burning. -''' '''10/29/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/We-should-not-try-to-ban-flag-burning/1/) Instigator: Harlan (Pro) Contender: Semper-Fi (Con) Round 1 Harlan: "To ban flag burning would be to deny our first amendment rights. It is a way to express our opinion. The support for a law banning flag burning does not come from any sort of idealism for public safety. It comes from blind, slave-like, obsessive patriotism. To deny our first amendment right would make many people, such as myself, very indignant. It would actually hurt public safety. Personally, I think that the Constitution should represent America more than a piece of cloth (often made in china, I should note)." Semper-Fi: "Yes, the Constitution should represent our country, but the reason that the american flag is so important, is because it was our symbol of independence from the british, and if you're burning the american flag, you're technically burning your independence." Round 2 Harlan: "I do not think that we are "burning" our independence, when we set a piece of cloth with a certain pattern of dye on it aflame. I think we are practicing our rights. You must realize that that is the reason why we separated from Great Britain: To have rights such as the right to freedom of speech. You may or may not know that in the time of the revolutionary war, colonists DID indeed burn British flags. What would our founding fathers say if they heard that we would use the revolution as justification to take away our most sacred rights? To ban flag burning is incredibly Un-American. To truly "burn" your freedom would be to not burn a flag because of a law. To burn a flag because you have a strong opinion against your government, would be to practice your freedoms as a citizen of this great nation, America. I think that if nothing, such a bill would encourage flag-burning. People would be very rebellious, if such an unjust law was to be passed." Semper-Fi: "Are you on the debate team at your school or something? Maybe I'm jsut not too good at this... Well, anyway, that's completley off topic. Our freedom of speech has, somehow, always been limited to certain things. In such places as school, they can limit what you can and can't say, and isn't that restricting our freedom of speech? If it's restricted some of the time, then why not at all, of just restrict it all the time?" Round 3 Harlan: "Unfortunately my school doesn't have a debate team to my knowledge. Your previous post seemed to be just the type of logic that murders democracy. One minute we restrict it just a little, than a little more, and then more, until finally we have a centralized government. Things such as the patriot act and this flag burning issue are the things that move the steps forward. But another thing we must consider is this really necessary? If there was an eminent danger from people burning flags, I might give in to idealism. I would like to present a rather surprising fact: in the entire year of 2004, the year that is most known for the controversial election which angered many, there were only 2 reported incidents of flag-burning. The entire year. The reasons that there are certain limitations to freedom of speech are sometimes justified and sometimes not. The general rule of thumb seems to be that it has to create an immediate danger to society; to provoke people to the point of violence. Right now, we are debating. We are disagreeing. We both passionately disagree with each other about this hypothetical law. Doesn't that prove that the law itself would create more controversy and disagreement than an occasional burning of a flag?" Semper-Fi: Semper-Fi forfeited this round.